[评论文章] 前外长Bob CARR超长篇社论，《鹰派言行将给澳洲带来苦酒》
(本译文首发新足迹网站，次发本论坛)悉尼先驱导报发表前外长Bob CARR长篇社论
鹰派言行将给澳洲带来苦酒
MAY 24 2017 - 12:41AM
Bob CARR
“美国有能力和中国打一场地面战争。”澳大利亚的外长马尔科姆·弗雷泽（Malcolm Fraser）在和我谈及这个问题时一脸肃穆，身影显得坚毅高大，头顶似乎挂着旧约先知般神圣的光环。
“和中国这样的对手打一场命定失败的战争，然后呢，再从亚洲撤出来!?”
(绘图: John Shakespeare)
最差的情况是什么呢？澳大利亚为美国火中取栗，美国佬抽身不管，我们却要在这个中国巨人占绝对优势的地区独自苦苦支撑。
上面场景当然是子虚乌有，远非现实。然而在唐纳德·特朗普当选之后，我国的鹰派目前不是（在某种程度上）正在把我们推向这个火坑吗。
让我们来考虑一下南中国海问题：
去年11月，澳大利亚战略研究所所长彼得·詹宁斯（Peter Jennings）曾发表意见说，特朗普很可能澳大利亚电话通气，要求澳洲参与（美方）在中国南海的巡航，以挑战中国。届时澳大利亚将（被迫表态，）不得不同意。
Andrew Shearer是另一位不愿用美国人视角看待中国问题的澳洲人。在华盛顿智库任职期间，他曾短暂的担任Tony ABBOTT的国家安全事务顾问，但其职务很快就被特恩布尔（Malcolm Turnbull）所顶替。一月十六日，他又一次争论到：“对参与（南中国海）巡航问题，澳洲态度犹豫不决。而美国，是对这一犹豫记挂在心的。”
美国真的会记挂在心吗？美国总统特朗普真的会通过电话吹风的形式，催促我们参与南海巡航吗？错了，两者都不是。恰恰相反，美国佬决定争取中国的支持，解决北朝鲜问题！
相对于美中关系的重要性，南海的自由巡航问题只有要靠边走的份儿。
2016年美国曾建议澳洲巡航，这令澳洲国内的一群（很傻很天真的）鹰派兴奋不已，鼎力支持。然并卵，特朗普2017年1月20日就职之后，美国的三次南海巡航，次次取消。
如果当初澳洲未经思索地盲从美国的建议，在美国的小伙伴中，我们就成了唯一这么做的傻鸟了。
澳中双方每年都举行防务与战略年度对话，最近一次是2016年10月。根据澳方与会者的信息，中方曾明确表示，澳方参与南海巡航将会导致经济报复。不知是否因为这个缘故，特恩布尔和艾伯特政府不约而同地，都没有坚持自己（南海巡航）的立场。
我们一直是美国大哥忠实的小伙伴。在三月十三日的新闻发布会上，当我们听到美国东亚大区助理国务卿Susan Thornton宣布放弃奥巴马政府的重返亚洲战略的时候，我们震惊了。大家所自豪的重返战略，所谓盟友的坚定不移，这千言万语，（美国佬）轻轻地一声放弃，一切的一切就全都分崩离析了。
现在的东南亚国家，又重新回到和中国一对一谈判解决领海争端的老路上去了。
五月十八日，中国和东盟签订一项框架协议。共申解决南海问题的行为准则，应该共同推进海上合作。
就在昨天，菲律宾第一次和中国进行了双边直接谈判，为解决南海争议进一步积累条件。
去年11月，马来西亚总理Najib Razak访华期间，双方签署了海军合作协议。今年1月3日，中国潜艇停靠马来西亚亚庇港（Kota Kinabalu Port），实现历史性的突破。
今年5月15日，中越两国发表联合公报，承诺双方将“管控好海上分歧…维护南海和平稳定”。
用澳大利亚的海军，挑战中国对南海申张的主权。尽管Kim Beazley曾经大力赞同过这个想法，工党也在2016年搞过这个文字游戏。可真这样做，只会搞砸澳中的关系。
现在美国对这个问题实行冷处理。据中国方面的消息说，美国副总统彭斯（Pence）在其东北亚之行中曾言，美国战略的重心在东北亚而非东南亚。与此同时，特朗普在接受《华尔街日报》采访时表示，他与习近平非常合得来，两人相处很好，彼此欣赏。
（美国）商务部长商务部长Wilbur Ross也表示，中美关系迎来历史新高。他盛赞双方达成的10项贸易协议是一项“宏伟的成就”。
堪培拉政府当初对美国海军和本国鹰派的（过激）要求，表现出冷静的头脑，现在看来是非常正确的。
现在还有些美国人，喜欢玩弄那种“遏制中国”，让美国重返权利宝座的游戏。还有些澳洲的冷战愤青，也一而再再而三地呼吁让澳洲也参与到这场“遏制中国”的棋局之中。可情况是，美国的外交政策，像钟摆一般（缺乏连贯性），不是摆向的过度激进的一端，就是回到另一端——不顾一切的退却下来。这就是这一思路的问题所在，不应归咎于这一任那一任的某个美国现任总统。
如果澳大利亚陷入了十字军东征般的狂热，在美国亢奋激进时我们作为盟友参与了进去。那么当美国人再次转向，如潮水一般退却的时候，我们难免自食其果。美国的诸多盟友中，须知只有我们经济上的未来对中国依赖最深。如果特恩布尔偏偏要受鹰派蛊惑的话，留给我们的无它，只是苦酒一杯。
【译者按】
如此重要的一篇社论，代表了澳洲政界对外交政策的一种反思，我很惊讶迄今为止还没有同学翻译。
社论很长，我个人的理解。此文的核心就是，澳洲的国家政策要以自己的利益为根本，而不是替别人火中取栗。南海问题，美国不上，澳洲当然不上。美国要是上，我们认怂也不上。
社论原文：
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/if-australia-listened-to-our-hawks-on-china-wed-have-been-hung-out-to-dry-20170523-gwaw1w.html
If Australia listened to our hawks on China, we'd have been hung out to dry
It was like a meeting with an Old Testament prophet. Towering and rock-hewn, Malcolm Fraser was grave, telling me – Australia's new foreign minister – that America was capable of being drawn into a land war with China.
"Going to war with China and losing it. And then withdrawing from Asia."
(Illustration: John Shakespeare)
In this nightmare, Australia would have been recruited to join America and then left high and dry, all alone in a region that China dominated.
A dystopian vision and a long way from current realities. But on a more modest scale, Australia would be stranded right now if, after the election of Donald Trump, we'd taken the advice of our own hawks about China policy.
Consider the South China Sea.
In November Peter Jennings, the director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, said Australia should expect an early phone call from Trump asking us to run patrols in the South China Sea to challenge China. He argued we would have to agree.
Andrew Shearer is another Australian inclined to view China through a Washington lens. With periods at Washington think-tanks he was Tony Abbott's national security advisor, but was quickly replaced by Malcolm Turnbull. He re-entered the debate on January 16 saying Australia's hesitation to run patrols that challenged China "has been noticed in Washington".
Noticed in Washington? An early phone call from Trump urging us to start patrolling? Nothing of the sort. On the contrary, the US decided it needed China's support over North Korea.
It weighed the importance of its own relationship with China and it put on hold its own freedom of navigation patrols.
So since Trump's inauguration on January 20, the US has ceased to run the very patrols that US admirals on three occasions since 2016 suggested Australia should run – and that Australian hawks excitedly backed.
If Australia had jumped with alacrity at their advice we would have been the only American friend to have done so.
Australia has an annual dialogue on defence and strategy with China. The last one was in October 2016. According to Australian participants, the Chinese were explicit there would be economic retaliation if Australia ran patrols. Whether this has been the reason or not, the Turnbull government, like the Abbott government, declined to fly the flag.
If we had taken the other course, the US would have pulled the rug from us.
After performing like a loyal little deputy, we would have been shocked to hear Susan Thornton, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian Affairs, saying at a March 13 press conference that the Obama administration's pivot to Asia was over. The much-vaunted pivot, on which so many words of alliance piety were spilt: over.
Now Southeast Asian nations are in one-on-one negotiations with the Chinese over their territorial disputes.
On May 18 China and ASEAN agreed on a framework for a code of conduct in the South China Sea, which will "promote maritime cooperation".
Just a day later, the Philippines conducted direct bilateral negotiations with China for the first time, in a step towards resolving their differences.
Last November Malaysia signed an agreement on naval co-operation with China during Prime Minister Najib Razak's visit to Beijing. On January 3, a Chinese Navy submarine made a historic call to Malaysia's South China Sea-facing Kota Kinabalu Port.
A joint communique between China and Vietnam signed on May 15 declared both sides will "manage and properly control maritime disputes ... and maintain peace and stability in the South China Sea".
We could have trashed our relationship with China by having our navy challenge Chinese claims. Yet even Labor had toyed with the concept in 2016 (although later dropped it) and Kim Beazley had endorsed it.
Now the US President has relegated the issue. Vice President Pence may even have communicated during his Asia tour that Northeast Asia and not Southeast Asia was the US priority – certainly Chinese sources believe that was his message. Meanwhile, President Trump says he has a special relationship with Xi Jinping and has boasted in the Wall Street Journal of their "very good relationship" and "great chemistry".
His commerce secretary Wilbur Ross also boasts about the new sheen on US-China relations. He calls the recent 10-point agreement on trade a "herculean accomplishment".
Canberra's cool-headedness in response to American admirals and its own hawks has been vindicated.
Some Americans may entertain the notion of containing China's return to great power status. Australian cold warriors will persist in urging us to join the containment project. But their problem is that America – not just the current president – can be impetuous, swinging between bursts of foreign policy activism and periods of retrenchment.
If allies such as Australia sign up for a burst of crusading zeal, they are liable to be hung out to dry when America changes direction. No other American ally is as dependent on China for its economic future. If the Turnbull government had been persuaded by the hawks, right now that would be our position: out to dry.
学习了。谢谢楼主分享。 :):):):):):) 这篇文章我之前也看了，说得还是中肯在理的。但是澳洲的问题是，政治和外交上属于英联邦、自由世界和美帝盟友，军事行动也必须跟进；然而经济上对中国有很大的依赖，而且地理上如果开战，别说中国和日本，连印尼和马来都可以凭借人力优势来 rush 澳新。摆在每届政府面前的问题是在顾面子（外交上和英美共进退）和顾里子（本国发展和安全防卫）之间找到平衡。亲美鹰派的做法必然会把澳洲带入危险，但是处于经济考虑一味跪舔中国的话，对一个民主政体也是心有不甘，面子上过不去。
页:
[1]